|
|
|
#22
02-15-2006, 04:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Exclusion, hatred and discrimination? Strong words. But I do not deny them. I exclude sin, hate foolishness and discriminate between right and wrong. I embrace those ideas as useful when maintained in wisdom. To foreswear all discrimination is logically inconsistent and self-defeating. Hurrah!
|
|
#23
02-15-2006, 05:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you see a dragon, call a zoo. If you see "highwaymen," call the police. Watch the Weather Channel to avoid tempests. Call the city road crews to clear the fallen trees. To follow Christ means to live like Him, talk like Him... to become like Him. As he told the religious scholar what one has to do to have eternal life in Luke 10, He said, "That you love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and muscle and intelligence--and that you love your neighbor as well as you do yourself." Quote:
I'm glad you mentioned idolatry. Essentially what you are doing is making a graven image or an idol out of the Bible. Instead of using the Bible to point to God, you point to the Bible as God. And it isn't. It is the work of writers who were inspired by God, who shared how God was revealed to them, who shared the history of Judaism and who shared the story of the life of Christ. I'm sure you will recoil at this, but in one way the Bible is like a work of art... every person brings their unique perspective to understanding it, to perceiving it's beauty & wisdom. It's more important to us than any ordinary work of art because it points us to God. Quote:
I don't know if I've ever heard such a haughty & judgemental statement. In that one sentence you've said Sol is a fool, a "gentile"--by which I'm sure you mean heathen/not Christian, and that for some weird reason the Holy Spirit didn't precede the gospel when it was made known to him. Your God-view is shallow and completely created out of your fear. If you could only have the courage to believe in a loving, compassionate God... instead of an ominous terrorist in the sky who is just waiting to smote you if you step out of line... If you could truly see God's love & compassion for yourself, you would be able to see it for other people.
|
|
#24
02-21-2006, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stop attacking me and address my ideas. Perhaps true faith IS born out of hysteria, or accompanies it. When God reveals Himself to sinful men, their response is tpically one of intense fear and trembling, such that they cannot stand, let alone maintain control of their various faculties. When God reveals himself to the elect, the response is one of ecstasy and overwhelming, indescribable, almost painful, joy. This is hysteria. What else but proper recognition of unworthiness and sin will lead one to recognize the need for salvation? True wisdom is a result of the fear of The Holy (Ps 111:10).
Is God angry and judging and wrathful? Certainly. God's wrath towards sin is a common theme throughout the Holy Scripture (Rom 2:5). Justice is as much a part of God's nature as mercy. To discriminate against what you call my shallow God-view is inconsistent with your philosophy, too. I do not claim to agree with your philosophy of pluralism, but it makes no sense for you to proclaim the diversity of God, and then proceed to criticize my perception of the Almighty. Perhaps some consider God to be more than merely "love and compassion". There are many kinds of wickedness that are not deserving of love. How then do we deal with such things if we cannot hate them with holy hatred (Heb 1:9)? In many situations, mercy is not even to be shown to the perpetrators of wickedness, as rulers are God's instruments of wrath against the wicked (Rom 13:4). God's compassion is free, but not universal. Some people have been created for mercy, some for wrath (9:21). Not all people are saved, because not every religion is true, and saying so is NOT idolatry. Only Christ can bring humans to salvation (14:6). In fact, religions are mutually exclusive, by virtue of their sanctity. Saying that every religion is holy is as good as saying that none are, because it removes the absolute singular unique holy otherness of the god that that religion worships. Different religions preach very different gods. One of the many paradoxes of Christianity is God's diversity in unity; the Trinity; the Three in One. God's diversity does not manifest itself in a diversity of many faiths, but rather in the unity of one. This is apparently foolish and nonsensical, however, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those to whom He has sent His Holy Spirit: for the Gospel proves to be foolishness and a stumbling-block to those who have not been chosen by God. For the foolishness of the Lord is wiser than the wisdom of mankind. Arrogant? Haughty? Judgemental? [Not that it makes any sense to be judgemental of judgmentalism] 1 Corinthians 1 would indicate otherwise. The reasoning and false wisdom of men is worthless in comparison to the paradox of the True Gospel. Paul, inspired by the Holy Ghost writes this to the elect at Ephesus: "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
|
|
#25
02-21-2006, 09:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
hermeneutics, certainty, survival, compassion
Hello everyone,
I think this is a very necessary, lively thread -- it has been fascinating to read its diverse and often heated posts. I think often about these things, and offer this post just as a doorway into some of my thoughts on the matter ... What people discuss here is the hermeneutics that we each bring to scripture. In other words: who were the authors of the Bible's words, what were there intentions/identities/levels of authority, and what does this say about our attitude towards the text we proclaim as Holy? Taking this a bit further, we ask: to what extent does our relationship with the Holy and our ultimate destiny rely on our interaction with these texts? How, in the end, are we to read and value the Bible? Several observations come to mind: 1. Many mainstream protestant denominations including my own (Lutheran) church are massively divided on the question of hermeneutics. The issue is becoming more and more divisive. 2. While it is true that the debate about gay and lesbian inclusion/ordination raging in many mainline denominations divides itself along approximately the same lines as that of the discussion about which hermeneutic is correct, I think that the two are not really related as a matter of logic, but rather (as some here have hinted) as a matter of CULTURE and PSYCHOLOGY. In other words -- I believe that the literal interpretation of the Bible and the exclusion of glbt flow from the same place, but the one is NOT usually the result of the other. (To see this, note that very very very few biblical literalists insist on the implementation of ALL mandates and laws recorded in the Bible and those that do are considered by most people to be extremely dangerous.) 3. It is my observation that what what those who insist on a literalist interpretation of the Bible AND those who demand gay and lesbian people be excluded from the life of the church seek above all else is the feeling of moral certainty. 4. Striving for this feeling of "moral certainty" is the means by which we all attempt to advance what I would call our own "cultural survival". In other words -- through our lust for certainty, we are crying out that: our way of living is the right way of living, we are justified in living in this particular way by power(s) larger than ourselves, God (the parent) approves of our way of living, we belong (in a tribal sense) to a collection of culturally alike people. Freud etc. would have related this to the drive to obtain parental approval or attention. Others would relate it to the instinct that a society (tribe) has toward survival and propagation. In a global world, these drives are increasingly vestigial, but still extremely powerful, and very much alive in all of us. 5. It is interesting to me how we Christians often refer to our church as a family (we are the children of God) and also as a tribe (Israel, the chosen people). Is it surprising then that our ancient instincts about belonging, authority and parentage apply powerfully to this body, and to the book which we all proclaim as the word of God? 6. Thinking about these issues in this way helps me: when someone insists on the "authority" of a text, or the "absolute" nature of a law, what they are seeking is essentially their own psychological survival, the survival of their family and the survival of their own way of life. They feel threatened. In a similar way, that is why many gay marriage opponents say that the institution of marriage itself is threatened by gay marriage. Like many assertions that seek to uphold certainty above all else, this is not a logical statement at all. Logic does not enter into it: it is not marriage itself that is truly in danger, but rather the self-image of the person advocating for certainty. 7. For me, this understanding leads to a kind of compassion. As a gay person, I'm very aware of what it feels like to not belong, to feel my identity shift beneath me, to want more than anything to be standing on some solid ground. So I can understand where these drives come from, and this helps me be in conversation and community with those who differ radically from me in these ways. Anyway just a few thoughts, I have and could add many more ... any reactions?
|
|
#27
02-22-2006, 10:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Great post Matt
Great Post, Matt. I think that you have a good mind. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and keep it up.
__________________
"The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract." -Oliver Wendell Holmes-
|
|
#28
02-23-2006, 11:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interesting. But certainly the Bible gives us some level of moral certainty? I hope so.
I think it somewhat unfair to designate anyone who endeavors to uphold the certainty of certain moral laws as insecure, though some certainly are. Anybody read GK Chesterton here? Fascinating, fascinating stuff. If you have, you may be able to better understand me when I say that trying to be absolutely open-minded ultimately results in blindness and foolishness. Certainty results in clarity. Is the institution of marriage in danger? It depends on what you think the institution of marriage represents. I think it is ridiculous that people consciously exclude gay and lesbian folks from the life of the church. If they really believe that homosexual activity is a sin, than they should treat it as any other sin. Their actions speak louder than their words. Nathan: could you give me some feedback on my earlier, longer post? I'm interested to see what you think. Thanks.
|
|
#29
02-23-2006, 02:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Legion,
You said: "But certainly the Bible gives us some level of moral certainty? I hope so." I think the Bible gives us a whole lot less moral certainty than most people think or would want. Way less. This is largely because when read literally, it contradicts itself over and over and over again. It transmits very few consistent moral directives even on matters such as homicide/infanticide, the use of prostitutes/concubines, the possession of wealth, ritual purity, marriage/divorce/polygamy, rape, war etc etc ... In addition to whatever else it might be, it is a collection of writings by people and cultures that have widely divergent and inconsistent views on these subjects and can therefore not be considered literally instructive on them, if taken as a whole. For me, the living Christ revealed in the Gospel (lived, proclaimed, written) is the center of faith and of ethics. Christ is myth, living reality, and mystery. The Bible is but one of the means by which I know Christ. Its authority, inerrancy or anything else about it are of rather little concern to me. How about you? Why is it so important to defend the consistency and inerrancy of the Bible? Or do I misread you? Are you in fact not a literalist? In that case Legion, how do you read the Bible? Perhaps an answer to this question will enlighten us on the origin of many of the views you are expressing. Also -- I can see your point to a certain degree on the question of whether insisting on the authority of a moral law indicates that one is insecure in some way. Perhaps not always. Your reference ot GK Chesterton is interesting. However, I do tend to believe that moral absolutes are extremely dangerous in most cases because they close us off from the reality of the world and of our own minds and hearts and the hearts of others. Whenever there is a conflict between the application of a moral maxim and the call of a real human soul, I know where my hope lies.
|
|
#30
02-23-2006, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Much of Christianity is paradox, as I think you would agree. If we are going to be Christians, we must learn to accept paradox, without necessarily understanding it. God is both mystery and manifest. Christ is both human and divine. Our modernist culture is reticent to accept the existence of unkowns, but our attempt to reclaim the mystery and the beauty of the Gospel should not require the sacrifice of some moral certainty. The basic moral laws are quite clear and evident in their dictation, but may be unclear in their application. Paradox again? Fortunately, God gives us grace and wisdom enough to apply His commands without being entirely lost and confused. Some issues are beyond our understanding, and will be so until we reach heaven. That does not mean that ignorance is an ideal. We should be perpetually striving for what understanding, wisdom and insight we can grasp.
Moral absolutes may be dangerous, but they need not be bad. Danger is inherent in Christianity. The Ten Commantments are pretty darn forthright and absolute. It is very hard to misconstrue Do Not Murder. The danger comes in the application. Should we flee from danger? Sometimes. We are sometimes told to flee and other times to stand fast and advance. God commands us to strive for integrity and moral excellence. Any task worth undertaking will involve certain elements of danger and arduousness. The main thing is to be balanced. Emphasis on either certainty or mystery, danger or safety, love or anger, to the detriment of the other is foolish. I believe that the Bible is both literal and figurative. I choose not to try to cram myself into one particular category at the expense of other categories, because not all passages are literal and not all passages are figurative (though I think many can be taken both ways).
|
|
#31
02-23-2006, 05:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Legion,
This is a very useful discussion for me ... the way you state your point of view is clear, and helps me sharpen my own. So thanks. What you just posted brought up a few reactions in me ... Quote:
Quote:
Paradox should not be confused with contradiction. The Bible's moral message is contradictory, not paradoxical. Paradox implies a hidden order behind an apparent contradiction, or that the contradiction flows from accepted precepts, and therefore must be true in some way. There is little that is orderly about the Bible ... but then again, it all comes down to whether you believe the Bible is authoritative in every word, or not. It's really a very simple choice, and it determines how you approach what the Bible implies. By what you say in the following Legion, I realize that you think that this is not a choice you must make: Quote:
You appeal to balance, Legion. This sounds very attractive, but some appeals to moderation are essentially compromises with our own deep desire for safety. We are willing to subject some Biblical passages to interpretation and scrutiny, but not others. Why? Because we don't feel safe calling the origins of certain culturally important moral maxims into question. I guess I just believe that we are all fully called into living in moral conversation with each other and with ourselves. That is the bottom line for me. The soul -- the indwelling Christ conscience -- along the communion of saints (the world) ... these are the ultimate sources of my morality (on good days.) The Bible is an important guide to thinking about these things, and is our record of Christ among us. For me, it is simply not, in whole or in part, an authoritative moral instruction manual.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
